Relativism: The Tangible Theory Essay -- essays research papers

Relativism The Tangible Theory     Since the beginning of keen-sighted thought, philosophers have searched forthe received meaning of honourableisticity. Many theorists have attempted to outcome thisquestion with reasoning, in an attempt to find a universal put up of rules, or away to distinguish right from malign. Some theorists turn over that this questionis best answered by a single moral standard, bit some others debate if in that respect nooky bea single declaration. heathen Relativism explores the mentation that there can be no bingle moral standard that applies to either peerless at any given time. The Kantiantheory, on the other hand, states that a universal sense of duty, would mostbenefit humankind. I regard that the Cultural Relativist theory takes intoconsideration the different cultures that make up the nation as a whole.The idea of universal truth in ethics, is a myth. The customs of differentsocieties are all that inhabit. These customs can not be correct or incorrect for that implies there is an independent standard of right and wrongby which they may be judged. In todays global community of interests stack areinteracting more and we are now discovering, more then ever, how divers(prenominal)cultures and people really are. For these reasons the Cultural Relativisttheory best defines what morality is, and where it came from.      like a shot all over the world people are communicating in ways never beforeimagined. Cultural Relativism believes that one countersink of ethics will notadequately adapt to the individuality of all the cultures and subcultures in theworld. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits everysituation at every time. There will always be exceptions to the rules.Cultural Relativism leaves the creation of moral and honourable standards to thecommunity. The community then makes moral judgments based on its specificculture, history, and individuali ty. For these reasons Cultural Relativismhelps the community, by letting the community set its admit moral standards,rather than impose a set of morals, as the absolutists would suggest. Imposinga set of universal morals would not be able to compensate for all the differentcultural differences that exist today. If a universal moral law were to becreated, what criteria would be considered? Would one use each communitiessreligion, customs, laws, educational standards, or cult... ...the nations of the world the set ofbeliefs which he thought brought the most good and happiness, he wouldinevitably, after careful considerations of their copulation merits, choose thatof his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs,and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best." And this discredits thepossibility that one such person can come up with a set of morals, or a true wayto calculate those morals, because in fact everyone is biased to his or her ownmor al beliefs. Absolutism is obviously not a feasible solution due to the factthat the cultures of the world are too radically diverse to ever be able to beclassified under one set of moral and ethical guidelines. I believe theUtilitarian idea of maximizing the good of the whole is also not feasible, on grievance of everyone not agreeing on what makes them the most happy. TheKantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account ofeveryones sense of duty being different. Although there will never be a moralor ethical theory that clearly includes all cultures as morally right, theRelativist theory is by far the most sensible solution offered to us at thistime.